A Randomized Trial Comparing Radical Prostatectomy Plus Endocrine Therapy versus External Beam Radiotherapy Plus Endocrine Therapy for Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: Results at Median Follow-up of 102 Months

Radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

To summarize recent evidence in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functional and oncological outcomes following radical prostatectomy (RP) compared to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number registry on 29 march 2021. Comparative studies, published since 2016, that reported on treatment with RP versus dose-escalated EBRT and ADT for high-risk non-metastatic PCa were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to appraise quality and risk of bias. A qualitative synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies, all non-randomized, met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias assessment indicated low (n = 14) to moderate/high (n = 5) risk of bias. Only three studies reported functional outcomes and/or HRQoL using different measurement instruments and methods. A clinically meaningful difference in HRQoL was not observed. All studies reported oncological outcomes and survival was generally good (5-year survival rates > 90%). In the majority of studies, a statistically significant difference between both treatment groups was not observed, or only differences in biochemical recurrence-free survival were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence clearly demonstrating superiority in terms of oncological outcomes of either RP or EBRT combined with ADT is lacking. Studies reporting functional outcomes and HRQoL are very scarce and the magnitude of the effect of RP versus dose-escalated EBRT with ADT on HRQoL and functional outcomes remains largely unknown.

Protein Levels of Anti-Apoptotic Mcl-1 and the Deubiquitinase USP9x Are Cooperatively Upregulated during Prostate Cancer Progression and Limit Response of Prostate Cancer Cells to Radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy constitutes an important therapeutic option for prostate cancer. However, prostate cancer cells often acquire resistance during cancer progression, limiting the cytotoxic effects of radiotherapy. Among factors regulating sensitivity to radiotherapy are members of the Bcl-2 protein family, known to regulate apoptosis at the mitochondrial level. Here, we analyzed the role of anti-apoptotic Mcl-1 and USP9x, a deubiquitinase stabilizing Mcl-1 protein levels, in prostate cancer progression and response to radiotherapy.

METHODS

Changes in Mcl-1 and USP9x levels during prostate cancer progression were determined by immunohistochemistry. Neutralization of Mcl-1 and USP9x was achieved by siRNA-mediated knockdown. We analyzed Mcl-1 stability after translational inhibition by cycloheximide. Cell death was determined by flow cytometry using an exclusion assay of mitochondrial membrane potential-sensitive dye. Changes in the clonogenic potential were examined by colony formation assay.

RESULTS

Protein levels of Mcl-1 and USP9x increased during prostate cancer progression, and high protein levels correlated with advanced prostate cancer stages. The stability of Mcl-1 reflected Mcl-1 protein levels in LNCaP and PC3 prostate cancer cells. Moreover, radiotherapy itself affected Mcl-1 protein turnover in prostate cancer cells. Particularly in LNCaP cells, the knockdown of USP9x expression reduced Mcl-1 protein levels and increased sensitivity to radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Posttranslational regulation of protein stability was often responsible for high protein levels of Mcl-1. Moreover, we demonstrated that deubiquitinase USP9x as a factor regulating Mcl-1 levels in prostate cancer cells, thus limiting cytotoxic response to radiotherapy.

Acute, Subchronic, and Chronic Complications of Radical Prostatectomy Versus Radiotherapy With Hormone Therapy in Older Adults With High-Risk Prostate Adenocarcinoma

Purpose

To compare acute, subchronic, and chronic complications between older patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer (HR-LPC) receiving radical prostatectomy (RP) and high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) combined with long-term hormone therapy (HT).

Patients and Methods

We recruited older patients (≥80 years) with HR-LPC from the Taiwan Cancer Registry database. After propensity score matching, logistic regression analysis was used to compare the acute, subchronic, and chronic complication rates between patients who underwent RP (the RP group) and high-dose IMRT combined with long-term HT (the IMRT+HT group).

Results

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) symptoms and urinary incontinence (UI) were the most common complications over 5 years (BPH symptoms: RP, 17.69%; IMRT+HT, 29.58%; UI: RP, 10.47%; IMRT+HT, 5.50%). Compared with the RP group, the IMRT+HT group had higher odds of BPH symptoms and lower odds of UI and hernia after the 5-year follow-up period. The impotence rates were significantly higher in the IMRT+HT group than in the RP group at 3 months and 1 year after treatment and became nonsignificant after 2 years. At 5 years after treatment, the IMRT+HT group had lower risks of UI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28–0.88) and hernia (aOR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.11–0.82) and a higher risk of BPH symptoms (aOR, 4.15; 95% CI, 2.82–7.37) than the RP group.

Conclusion

IMRT+HT was associated with lower UI and hernia risks than RP. By contrast, RP was associated with fewer complications of BPH over the follow-up period and less impotence during the first year after treatment. Our findings provide important and valuable references for shared decision-making for optimal therapy selection among older men with HR-LPC.

Comparative oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy plus androgen deprivation therapy in men with clinical T3b prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To compare oncological outcomes in men with clinical T3b prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy or a combination of radiation therapy plus androgen deprivation therapy.

METHODS

Men with clinical T3b prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy plus androgen deprivation therapy between 2007 and 2014 were evaluated. All patients were relatively healthy, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 without nodal or distant metastasis. Cancer-specific survival was analyzed. Age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, biopsy Gleason score and pretreatment prostate-specific antigen were adjusted by propensity score matching. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess factors prognostic of cancer-specific survival.

RESULTS

Of the 152 patients with clinical T3b prostate cancer, 45 underwent radical prostatectomy, and 107 underwent radiation therapy plus androgen deprivation therapy between 2007 and 2014. The mean cancer-specific survival was significantly longer in the radical prostatectomy than in the radiation therapy plus androgen deprivation therapy group (P = 0.029). Age, Charlson Comorbidity Index and pretreatment prostate-specific antigen were significantly higher in the radiation therapy plus androgen deprivation therapy group. In the propensity score matched population of 24 patients each, the median cancer-specific survival remained significantly longer in the radical prostatectomy than in the radiation therapy plus androgen deprivation therapy group (not reached vs 112.93 ± 11.94 months, P = 0.026). Multivariate analysis showed that undergoing radiation therapy plus androgen deprivation therapy was the only significant poor prognostic factor for cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio 6.694, 95% confidence interval 1.642-27.592, P = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

Cancer-specific survival was significantly longer in men with clinical T3b prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy than radiation therapy plus androgen deprivation therapy, suggesting that radical prostatectomy can be a better treatment option for the initial definitive treatment for these patients.

Characterizing Surgical and Radiotherapy Outcomes in Non-metastatic High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Identifying the optimal management of high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) is an important public health concern, given the large burden of this disease. We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing PCa-specific mortality (CSM) among men diagnosed with high-risk non-metastatic PCa who were treated with primary radiotherapy (RT) and radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods Medline and Embase were searched for articles between January 1, 2005, and February 11, 2020. After title and abstract screening, two authors independently reviewed full-text articles for inclusion. Data were abstracted, and a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, involving a comprehensive list of confounding variables, was used to assess the risk of bias. Results Fifteen studies involving 131,392 patients were included. No difference in adjusted CSM in RT relative to RP was shown (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% confidence interval: 0.84, 1.25]). Increased CSM was found in a subgroup analysis comparing external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with RP (1.35 [1.10, 1.68]), whereas EBRT combined with brachytherapy (BT) versus RP showed lower CSM (0.68 [0.48, 0.95]). All studies demonstrated a high risk of bias as none fully adjusted for all confounding variables. Conclusion We found no difference in CSM between men diagnosed with non-metastatic high-risk PCa and treated with RP or RT; however, this is likely explained by increased CSM in men treated with EBRT and decreased CSM in men treated with EBRT + BT studies relative to RP. High risk of bias in all studies identifies the need for better data collection and confounding control in the PCa research.

Prognostic comparison between radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients at different stages and ages

Radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) are both evidence-based nonconservative treatments for prostate cancer (PCa). However, which treatment is better remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the prognostic difference between radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) in PCa patients at different stages and ages. Two independent PCa cohorts (the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, SEER; and the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian, PLCO) were employed. Cox regression was used to calculate the hazard ratios (HRs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In both cohorts, patients who received RT exhibited a worse prognostic outcome than those who underwent RP. When stratified analysis was performed by tumor node metastasis (TNM) stage and age at diagnosis in the SEER cohort, the HR of RT versus RP for overall survival increased with TNM stage but decreased with age. Specifically, PCa patients in stage I in the age range of 55–84 years, stage IIA at 70–85+ years, and stage IIB at 75–85+ years had better survival with RT than RP patients (p < 0.05). In contrast, patients in stages IIA, IIB, III and IV with respective age ranges of 55–64 years; 50–74 years; 55–59, 65–74 years; and 45–74 years showed worse survival with RT compared with RP (p < 0.05). These findings were partially validated in the PLCO dataset. Our results indicated that the choice between RT and RP should be guided by TNM stage and age. These findings may facilitate counseling regarding the prognostic effect of RT and RP for PCa patients.

Conventional radical versus focal treatment for localised prostate cancer: a propensity score weighted comparison of 6-year tumour control

BACKGROUND

For localised prostate cancer, focal therapy offers an organ-sparing alternative to radical treatments (radiotherapy or prostatectomy). Currently, there is no randomised comparative effectiveness data evaluating cancer control of both strategies.

METHODS

Following the eligibility criteria PSA < 20 ng/mL, Gleason score ≤ 7 and T-stage ≤ T2c, we included 830 radical (440 radiotherapy, 390 prostatectomy) and 530 focal therapy (cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound or high-dose-rate brachytherapy) patients treated between 2005 and 2018 from multicentre registries in the Netherlands and the UK. A propensity score weighted (PSW) analysis was performed to compare failure-free survival (FFS), with failure defined as salvage treatment, metastatic disease, systemic treatment (androgen deprivation therapy or chemotherapy), or progression to watchful waiting. The secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). Median (IQR) follow-up in each cohort was 55 (28-83) and 62 (42-83) months, respectively.

RESULTS

At baseline, radical patients had higher PSA (10.3 versus 7.9) and higher-grade disease (31% ISUP 3 versus 11%) compared to focal patients. After PSW, all covariates were balanced (SMD < 0.1). 6-year weighted FFS was higher after radical therapy (80.3%, 95% CI 73.9-87.3) than after focal therapy (72.8%, 95% CI 66.8-79.8) although not statistically significant (p = 0.1). 6-year weighted OS was significantly lower after radical therapy (93.4%, 95% CI 90.1-95.2 versus 97.5%, 95% CI 94-99.9; p = 0.02). When compared in a three-way analysis, focal and LRP patients had a higher risk of treatment failure than EBRT patients (p < 0.001), but EBRT patients had a higher risk of mortality than focal patients (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of a cohort-based analysis in which residual confounders are likely to exist, we found no clinically relevant difference in cancer control conferred by focal therapy compared to radical therapy at 6 years.

Oncologic Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy and High-Dose Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy with Androgen-Deprivation Therapy for Relatively Young Patients with Unfavorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Adenocarcinoma

Simple Summary

Scarce reports have evaluated oncologic outcomes in relatively young men with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer (UIR-PC) receiving radical prostatectomy (RP) or high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). After a literature review, we present the leading and largest head-to-head propensity score-matched study to examine all-cause death, biochemical failure (BF), locoregional recurrence (LRR), and distant metastasis (DM) in relatively young men with UIR-PC undergoing RP or high-dose IMRT. After adjustment for confounders, RP was found to be superior to high-dose IMRT in terms of the patients’ overall survival, BF, LRR, and DM.

Abstract

Purpose: To estimate the oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) and high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with short-term androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) in relatively young men with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN-UIR-PC). Patients and Methods: We enrolled relatively young men (≤65 years) from the Taiwan Cancer Registry who had been diagnosed as having NCCN-UIR-PC and who had received RP or high-dose IMRT (at least ≥72 Gy) with short-term ADT (4–6 months). After propensity score matching of the confounders, Cox proportional regression was used to model the time from the index date (i.e., date of diagnosis) to all-cause death, biochemical failure (BF), locoregional recurrence (LRR), and distant metastasis (DM). Results: The corresponding adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) of the risk of all-cause death, BF, LRR, and DM were 2.76 (1.36–5.60, p = 0.0050), 2.74 (1.72–4.84, p < 0.0001), 1.28 (1.09–1.90, p = 0.0324), and 2.11 (1.40–4.88, p = 0.0052), respectively. Conclusions: RP is superior to high-dose IMRT with short-term ADT in terms of oncologic outcomes for relatively young men with UIR-PC.

Oncologic outcome of radical prostatectomy versus radiotherapy as primary treatment for high and very high risk localized prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To compare the oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) versus external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) ± androgen deprivation therapy for primary treatment of high risk localized prostate cancer (CaP).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively-populated database for cases who underwent primary treatment for high risk localized CaP, had more than 2 years follow-up, and were treated since 2006. A total of 335 cases were studied of whom 291 underwent RP and 44 underwent EBRT. Clinical characteristics, biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were compared.

RESULTS

EBRT cases were older (p < .01; mean 71 years vs. 61 years) and had longer PSA doubling time (PSADT) (p = .03; median 4.8 years vs. 3.5 years) than RP. Race, pretreatment PSA and biopsy Gleason score were similar. Median follow-up was 5.1 (range: 2.3-12.8) years for RP versus 3.3 (range: 2-12.4) years for EBRT. Three- and 5-year BPFS were 42% and 36% after RP versus 86% and 75% after EBRT (p < .01). The rate of adjuvant/salvage therapy was 58% after RP versus 20% after EBRT (p < .01). Three- and 5-year MFS were 80% and 77% after RP versus 91% and 91% after EBRT (p = .11). Three-year CSS was 98% in both groups and OS was 97% after RP versus 94% after EBRT (p = .73).

CONCLUSIONS

RP had higher rates of biochemical failure and adjuvant or salvage treatment versus EBRT in high risk localized CaP. MFS trended toward benefit after EBRT, but CSS and OS remained high in both groups.

Updated evidence on oncological outcomes of surgery versus external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer

Radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy are recognized as comparable treatment options for localized prostate cancer. Previous studies of oncological outcomes of surgery versus radiotherapy have reported their comparability or possible superiority of surgery. However, the issue of which treatment is better remains controversial. Several factors make fair comparison of their outcomes difficult: different patient backgrounds caused by selection bias, different definitions of biochemical recurrence and different complication profiles between the treatment modalities. In 2016, the first large randomized controlled trial was published, which compared radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy and active monitoring in localized prostate cancer. More recently, another study has reported comparative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and volumetric modulated arc therapy, as the leading surgery and radiotherapy techniques, respectively. Furthermore, there has been a trend toward combining external beam radiotherapy with brachytherapy boost, especially in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. This review summarizes the updated evidence on oncological outcomes of surgery versus external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.

Impact on quality of life 3 years after diagnosis of prostate cancer patients below 75 at diagnosis: an observational case-control study

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer patients are known to suffer from poor sexual and urinary long-term side-effects following treatment, potentially impacting quality of life. The purpose of our study was to compare health-related quality of life at 3 years between prostate cancer patients and healthy controls according to key life-style characteristics. Secondary objectives were to compare urological dysfunction, sexual function, anxiety and depression.

METHODS

Multicentric, case-control, observational prospective, open, follow-up study including 819 prostate cancer patients < 75 years old from the EPICAP cohort, newly diagnosed from 1 December 2011 to 31 March 2014 and 879 healthy controls. Participants were excluded if they experienced a relapse. Controls from the same geographical region were age-matched and were excluded if they were diagnosed with prostate cancer. Patients received one of the following treatments: active surveillance (AS), radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), High-intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU), chemotherapy (CT), or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) as appropriate. The primary outcome was the quality of life as evaluated by the QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Scores were analyzed by multivariate analysis to adjust for predefined socio-demographic confounding effects.

RESULTS

In total, 564 participants were included (mean age 67.9 years): 376 patients and 188 controls. Treatment breakdown was: 258 underwent RP, 90 received EBRT, 52 brachytherapy or HIFU, 15 CT, 26 ADT and 61 AS. There was no difference in median global quality of life between patients and controls (94.87 vs 94.15, p = 0.71). Multivariate analysis showed poorer social functioning in patients (24.3% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.0209), more dyspnea (22% vs. 12.4%, p = 0.0078), and yet less current pain (23% vs 33%, p = 0.0151).

CONCLUSIONS

Global health status score at 3 years after diagnosis was similar between patients and controls, though patients showed a significantly worse social functioning. Prostate cancer diagnosis per se does not seem to impact the quality of life of patients < 75 years at diagnosis. However, the therapeutic option that will be chosen following diagnosis should be carefully discussed with the medical staff in terms of benefit-risk ratios as it could have a long-term impact on urinary or erectile dysfunction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02854982 . Registered 4 August 2016, retrospectively registered.

The efficacy and safety of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The optimal treatment for patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remains a debate and selection of patients to receive proper therapy is still an unsettled question. This systematic review was conducted to compare the effectiveness of prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) in patients with high-risk PCa and to select candidates for optimal treatment.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for eligible studies. We extracted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of all included studies. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS); the secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS) and clinical recurrence-free survival (CRFS). The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to Gleason score (GS), T stage and RT types. Quality of life (QoL) was compared with these two treatments.

Results

A total of 25 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, RP showed more survival benefits than RT on CSS (P = 0.003) and OS (P = 0.002); while RT was associated with better BRFS (P = 0.002) and MFS (P = 0.004). Subgroup analyses showed RT was associated with similar or even better survival outcomes compared to RP in patients with high GS, high T stage or received external beam radiotherapy plus brachytherapy (EBRT + BT). As for QoL, RP was associated with poorer urinary and sexual function but better performance in the bowel domain.

Conclusion

RP could prolong the survival time of patients with high-risk PCa; however, RT could delay the disease progression, and combined RT (EBRT + BT) even brought preferable CSS and similar OS compared to RP. RT might be the prior choice for patients with high T stage or high GS. RP could lead to poorer urinary and sexual function, while bringing better performance in the bowel domain.

Combined Modality Therapies for High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Narrative Review of Current Understanding and New Directions

Despite the many prospective randomized trials that have been available in the past decade regarding the optimization of radiation, hormonal, and surgical therapies for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), many questions remain. There is currently a lack of level I evidence regarding the relative efficacy of radical prostatectomy (RP) followed by adjuvant radiation compared to radiation therapy (RT) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk PCa. Current retrospective series have also described an improvement in biochemical outcomes and PCa-specific mortality through the use of augmented radiation strategies incorporating brachytherapy. The relative efficacy of modern augmented RT compared to RP is still incompletely understood. We present a narrative review regarding recent advances in understanding regarding comparisons of overall and PCa-specific mortality measures among patients with high-risk PCa treated with either an RP/adjuvant RT or an RT/ADT approach. We give special consideration to recent trends toward the assembly of multi-institutional series targeted at providing high-quality data to minimize the effects of residual confounding. We also provide a narrative review of recent studies examining brachytherapy boost and systemic therapies, as well as an overview of currently planned and ongoing studies that will further elucidate strategies for treatment optimization over the next decade.

Comparison of Radical Prostatectomy Versus Radiation and Androgen Deprivation Therapy Strategies as Primary Treatment for High-risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

There is little level 1 evidence regarding the relative efficacy of radical prostatectomy (RP) compared with radiotherapy (RT) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing overall and prostate cancer-specific mortality (OM and PCM) among patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with RP or RT/ADT.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library through July 2019 covering a period since 2009. We report the results of our systematic search according to recommendations from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were extracted for each endpoint. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 23 studies with low to moderate risk of bias were found to meet the inclusion criteria. In keeping with prior studies, external beam radiation therapy (XRT) without specification of ADT was associated with worse OM and PCM (aHR 1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-1.91, p <  0.0001: I² = 53.4%) and (aHR 1.90, 95% CI 1.61-2.23, p <  0.0001: I² = 50.4%). These associations were weaker although not entirely eliminated when comparing RT/ADT versus RP (PCM aHR 1.54, 95% CI 1.16-2.04, p =  0.002: I² = 61.5%). Combination of RT and brachytherapy (MaxRT), on the contrary, was associated with improved PCM compared with RP (aHR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30-0.78, p =  0.003: I² = 23.8%), an effect that was not significant when comparing MaxRT with the combination RP/adjuvant RT (aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59-1.11, p =  0.197: I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence demonstrating definitive superiority of either modality is lacking. Recent studies show improved consideration of ADT, radiation dose, brachytherapy boost, and utilization of postoperative adjuvant radiation. Residual confounding continues to limit the interpretation of observational data.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer, many observational studies reporting higher mortality for radiotherapy demonstrate potential for confounding. More recent studies with current standard of care radiation regimens using androgen deprivation therapy or brachytherapy boost demonstrate approaching equivalence of prostatectomy and radiation modalities. Prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Significance of Time Until PSA Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy Without Neo- or Adjuvant Treatment to Clinical Progression and Cancer-Related Death in High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients

Objective: The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of time until biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) without neo- or adjuvant treatment on clinical progression (CP) and cancer-related death (CRD) in high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) patients. Materials and methods: A total of 433 men with clinically HRPCa treated between 2001 and 2017 were identified. HRPCa was defined as clinical stage ≥T2c and/or biopsy Gleason score (GS) ≥8 and/or preoperative prostate specific antigen (PSA) value ≥20 ng/ml. Exclusion criteria were neo- or adjuvant treatment and incomplete pathological or follow-up data. BCR was defined as two consecutive PSA values ≥0.2 ng/ml after RP. CP was identified as skeletal lesions, local or loco-regional recurrence. CRD was defined as death from PCa. All men were divided into two groups according to BCR. The chi-square and t-tests were used to compare baseline characteristics between groups. Biochemical progression free survival (BPFS), clinical progression free survival (CPFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Patients with detected BCR were analyzed for prediction of CP and CRD with respect to time until BCR. The impact of baseline parameters on BCR, CP, and CRD was assessed by Cox regression analysis. Results: BCR, CP, and CRD rates were 47.8% (207/433), 11.3% (49/433), and 5.5% (24/433), respectively. Median (quartiles) time of follow-up after RP was 64 (40-110) months. Ten-year BPFS rate was 34.2%; CPFS, 81%; and CSS, 90.1%. Men with detected BCR were analyzed for prediction of CP and CRD with respect to time until BCR. The most informative cutoff for time from RP until CP and CRD was ≤ 1 year (p < 0.008). According to this cutoff, men were divided into two groups: BCR detected within 1 year and after a 1-year period. Ten-year CPFS was 49.8% in men with early BCR vs. 81.1% in men with late BCR; CSS was 70.9 vs. 92.8% (p = 0.001). Multivariable analysis confirmed that time until BCR within 1 year predicts CP (p = 0.005) and CRD (p = 0.03). Conclusions: Early BCR is associated with poorer oncological outcomes. The presented results may help both to improve follow-up strategy and opt for more aggressive multimodal treatment of HRPCa in men with very early BCR.

Comparative effectiveness of surgery versus external beam radiation with/without brachytherapy in high-risk localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial if radical prostatectomy or definitive radiation therapy produces equivalent outcomes in high-risk localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

We queried The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database for those who received upfront surgery or who were recommended for surgery but instead received radiation. Inverse probability of treatment weighing was used to adjust for covariate imbalance and the weighted Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the effects of treatment groups on survival. A meta-analysis was performed to pool estimates from published studies.

RESULTS

Among eligible 62 533 patients, 59 540 had upfront surgery and 2993 patients had upfront radiotherapy. EBRT + BT was associated with a superior cancer-specific survival (CSS) compared with surgery or EBRT alone (HR, 0.55, 95% CI, 0.3-1.0; HR, 0.49, 95% CI, 0.24-0.98, respectively), whereas EBRT was associated with an inferior overall survival (OS) compared with surgery (HR, 1.46, 95% CI, 1.16-1.8). Radiotherapy (EBRT ± BT) was inferior to surgery by OS (HR, 1.63, 95% CI, 1.13-2.34) in patients ≤ 65 years, and was superior to surgery by CSS in patients > 65 years (HR, 0.69, 95% CI, 0.49-0.97). The meta-analysis showed consistent results.

CONCLUSION

EBRT + BT was associated with a significantly better prostate CSS compared with surgery or EBRT. EBRT alone was inferior to surgery by OS.

Oncological control in high-risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy compared to radiotherapy plus primary hormone therapy

INTRODUCTION

In patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer (HRPCa), multimodal treatment plays a fundamental role.

OBJECTIVE

To compare relapse-free survival (RFS) in patients with HRPCa, treated primarily with radiotherapy (RT)+hormone therapy (HT) versus radical prostatectomy (RP) and salvage RT (sRT)±HT when biochemical recurrence (BCR) appears.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 226 patients with HRPCa (1996-2008), treated primarily with RT+HT (n=137) or RP (n=89). The Kaplan-Meier method has been used to evaluate survival and the log-rank test has been used to evaluate the contrast between the different categories of the variables. Multivariate analysis has been performed using Cox regression to determine variables with an impact on RFS with statistical significance (P<0.05).

RESULTS

The median follow-up of the series was 111 (IQR 85-137.5) months. After RT+HT, 32 (23.4%) patients relapsed, and after RP (P=0.0001), 41 (46.1%) cases. When comparing the primary treatments, the RFS at 5 and 10 years was higher after RT+HT versus RP in monotherapy (P=0.001). The primary treatment with RT+HT reduced the risk of BCR when compared to the RP (HR=0.41, P=0.002). The estimation of the RFS at 5 and 10 years after RP+sRT±HT was 89.7 and 87.1%, while after primary RT+HT was 91.6 and 71.1%, respectively (P=0.01). The only factor that behaved as an independent predictor of RFS was the multimodal treatment with RP+sRT±HT when BCR showed up (HR=2.39, P=0.01).

CONCLUSION

In HRPCa, multimodal treatment with RP+sRT±HT if BCR, significantly improves RFS with respect to treatment with RT+HT.

Differences in overall survival and cancer-specific survival in high-risk prostate cancer patients according to the primary treatment

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

There is no high-level evidence as to which primary treatment provides an overall survival (OS) or cancer-specific survival (CSS) advantage in high-risk localised prostate cancer (HRLPC). Our aim was to analyse the differences in survival and predictive factors in this group of patients, according to their primary treatment (radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy and androgen blockade (RT+HT)).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective study of 286 HRLPC patients diagnosed between 1996-2008, treated by RP (n=145) or RT+HT(n=141). Survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Significant differences between the different variables were analysed using the log-rank test. A uni and multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors.

RESULTS

the median follow-up was 117.5 (IQR 87-158) months. The OS was longer (p=.04) in the RP patients, while there were no differences (P=.44) in CSS between either group. The type of primary treatment was not related to OS or CSS. Age (P=.002), the onset during follow-up of a 2nd tumour (P=.0001), and stage cT3a (P=.009) behaved as independent predictive variables of OS. None of the variables behaved as an independent predictive variable of CSS, although biochemical recurrence after rescue treatment (P=.058), and the onset of a 2nd tumour during follow-up showed a significant trend to statistical significance, the latter reducing specific cancer mortality (HR .16, 95%CI .02-1.18, P=.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary treatment did not relate to OS or CSS in patients with HRPC.

Outcomes of Prostatectomy versus Radiation Therapy in the Management of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Patients Within the PLCO Trial

BACKGROUND

The objective of the study was to evaluate the outcomes of clinically localized prostate cancer treated with prostatectomy versus radiation therapy within the context of a prospective prostate cancer screening study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Within the PLCO (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovary) trial, patients who were diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer and subsequently received treatment with prostatectomy or radiation therapy (with or without hormonal treatment) were included. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were then performed to determine factors affecting overall and prostate cancer-specific survival. Factors with P < .05 in univariate analysis were included in the multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 3953 patients were included in the current analysis. These included 2044 patients treated with prostatectomy and 1909 patients treated with radiation therapy with or without hormonal treatment. In an adjusted multivariate analysis for factors affecting overall survival, prostatectomy was associated with better overall survival compared with radiation therapy (hazard ratio, 0.548; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.440- 681; P < .001). Likewise, in an adjusted multivariate analysis for factors affecting prostate cancer-specific survival, prostatectomy was associated with better prostate cancer-specific survival compared with radiation therapy (hazard ratio, 0.485; 95% CI, 0.286- 0.822; P = .007). Similar findings were found with propensity score matching and repeating the same analyses on the post-matching cohort.

CONCLUSION

Prostatectomy seems to predict better overall and prostate cancer-specific survival compared with radiation therapy among patients with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed within the PLCO trial.

Individual and Population Comparisons of Surgery and Radiotherapy Outcomes in Prostate Cancer Using Bayesian Multistate Models

IMPORTANCE

Whether surgery or radiotherapy is the preferred treatment for patients with localized prostate cancer continues to be debated, and randomized clinical trials cannot yet fully address this question. Furthermore, there may be heterogeneity in responses, and the optimal treatment for a patient will depend on his clinical and tumor characteristics.

OBJECTIVES

To use a unified statistical approach to compare the association of surgery and radiotherapy with both metastatic clinical failure (CF) and survival in localized prostate cancer and to develop an online calculator for individualized, treatment-specific outcome prediction.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Cohort study for statistical analysis and development of individualized predictions using Bayesian multistate models that jointly consider both CF and survival and adjust for confounding factors. This study used data from patients treated at the University of Michigan between January 1, 1996, and July 1, 2013, with detailed information on treatment, patient and tumor characteristics, and outcomes. Primary analyses were performed in 2017 and 2018. Participants were a cohort of 4544 patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing primary treatment.

EXPOSURES

Radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The clinical outcomes were metastatic CF, death after CF, and death from other causes. The adjustment factors were age, prostate gland volume, prostate-specific antigen level, comorbidities, Gleason score, perineural invasion, cT category, race, and treatment year. An online calculator was developed to estimate risks for multiple outcomes for any patient based on 2 treatment choices and on his clinical and tumor characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 4544 men (mean [SD] age, 61.2 [8.0] years), 3769 underwent radical prostatectomy, 775 received external beam radiotherapy, 157 (3.5%) had CF, 90 (2.0%) died after CF, and 378 (8.3%) died of other causes. Across all patients, there was no significant difference in risk of CF for surgery vs radiotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.52-1.23). However, using multistate models, in some cases individualized predictions resulted in different expected outcomes between surgery and radiotherapy for a given patient.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, after adjustment for measured confounders, the hazard of CF was similar between treatments on average. However, these data indicate a greater oncologic benefit for some individual patients if treated with surgery and for other patients if treated with radiotherapy. Individualized predictions provide a novel approach to facilitate treatment decision making.

Referral rates to multidisciplinary team meetings: Is there disparity between tumour streams?

INTRODUCTION

The multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) approach is accepted as standard of care to optimise treatment for patients diagnosed with cancer. This retrospective audit reviews the proportion of patients whose care is being discussed at cancer MDTMs within the Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service (SCHHS).

METHODS

Patients included were those diagnosed with cancer within the SCHHS between 2010 and 2015, and subsequently referred to a public MDTM for discussion. Data were extracted from the Queensland Cancer Control Analysis Team (QCCAT) database regarding the incidence of breast, lung, upper gastrointestinal (GI), colorectal, genitourinary and malignant haematological cancers and the number of patients referred to the corresponding MDTM.

RESULTS

Data from 2015 show referral rates to MDTMs as follows: lung 100%, upper gastrointestinal 100%, colorectal 64%, breast 60%, malignant haematology 40% and genitourinary 28%. Of the genitourinary presentations, 70% were prostate cases and 14% bladder cases. Review of genitourinary MDTM outcomes found that, of the patients with prostate cancer discussed, 30% were metastatic, 19% were poor surgical candidates and 15% had biochemical recurrence.

CONCLUSION

This audit demonstrates variable utilisation of MDTMs between tumour streams. Our study shows a high and increasing referral rate to all tumour stream MDTMs except for genitourinary. This suggests a possible underutilisation of genitourinary MDTMs to discuss treatment options for patients with genitourinary cancer. Collaborative research is warranted to further investigate whether this is a local or widespread issue.

Extrafascial robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in locally advanced prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Up to 26.5% of new diagnosed prostate cancers (PCa) are locally advanced (LA). Although traditionally discouraged in this setting, radical prostatectomy (RP) lowers the risk of metastatic progression and cancer-specific death. We report a review of the available evidences and describe our surgical technique of extrafascial robot-assisted RP.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The PubMed/Medline database was searched for "prostate cancer," "high-risk," "locally advanced," "prostatectomy." Duplicates and expert opinion papers were removed.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

RP is an option in selected patients with LA-PCa and >10 years life expectancy. Five, 10 and 15 years after open RP, disease free survival rates were 85%, 73% and 67%. At the same time-points, cancer specific survival and overall survival were 95%, 90%, 79% and 90%, 76%, 53%, respectively. Postoperative potency was achieved by 25% of the patients while 79% were continent. Robotic prostatectomy provides comparable cancer control outcomes, but it is associated with a lower transfusion rate and a shorter hospitalization time. The concept of "extrafascial prostatectomy" was introduced in 2000 by Villers: this surgical approach reduces the incidence of mid- and postero-lateral positive margins (28% vs. 51%, when compared to intrafascial; P=0.08), expecially in pT3 cancers, but markedly affects potency.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted RP is an option in patients with LA-PCa. Removing the prostate gland and the seminal vesicles still contained inside their aponeurotic covering, minimize the risk of positive surgical margins and clinical recurrence.

Predictive factors of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To identify risk factors of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in high-risk patients.

METHODS

A total of 191 high-risk prostate cancer patients according to the D'Amico classification treated with radical prostatectomy at a single institution between April 2000 and December 2013 were enrolled. The pathological evaluation including intraductal carcinoma of prostate was reassessed, and the clinical and pathological risk factors of biochemical recurrence were analyzed.

RESULTS

The median follow up after radical prostatectomy was 49 months. The 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rate after radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer patients was 41.6%. Initial prostate-specific antigen, pathological Gleason score, seminal vesicle invasion, extraprostatic extension and intraductal carcinoma of the prostate were significantly associated with biochemical recurrence-free survival. The 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rates in patients with zero, one, two and three of these risk factors were 92.9%, 70.7%, 38.3% and 28.8%, respectively. In patients with four or more factors, the biochemical recurrence-free survival rate was 6.1% after 18 months.

CONCLUSIONS

In D'Amico high-risk patients treated with radical prostatectomy, risk factors for biochemical recurrence can be identified. Patients with fewer risk factors have longer biochemical recurrence-free survival, even among these high-risk cases.

Racial Disparities in Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Treatment: The Potential Health Information Technology Offers

PURPOSE

Black men are more likely to die as a result of prostate cancer than white men, despite effective treatments that improve survival for clinically significant prostate cancer. We undertook this study to identify gaps in prostate cancer care quality, racial disparities in care, and underlying reasons for poorer quality care.

METHODS

We identified all black men and random age-matched white men with Gleason scores ≥ 7 diagnosed between 2006 and 2013 at two urban hospitals to determine rates of treatment underuse. Underuse was defined as not receiving primary surgery, cryotherapy, or radiotherapy. We then interviewed treating physicians about the reasons for underuse.

RESULTS

Of 359 black and 282 white men, only 25 (4%) experienced treatment underuse, and 23 (92%) of these were black. Most (78%) cases of underuse were due to system failures, where treatment was recommended but not received; 38% of these men continued receiving care at the hospitals. All men with treatment underuse due to system failures were black.

CONCLUSION

Treatment rates of prostate cancer are high. Yet, racial disparities in rates and causes of underuse remain. Only black men experienced system failures, a type of underuse amenable to health information technology-based solutions. Institutions are missing opportunities to use their health information technology capabilities to reduce disparities in cancer care.

Superior metastasis-free survival for patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with definitive radiation therapy compared to radical prostatectomy: A propensity score-matched analysis

Purpose

For high-risk prostate cancer (HR-PCa) in men with a life expectancy of at least 10 years, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends radiation therapy (RT) plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with category 1 evidence or radical prostatectomy (RP) as an acceptable initial therapy. Randomized evidence regarding which therapy is optimal for disease control is lacking for men with HR-PCa. We performed a propensity-score-matched comparison of outcomes for men with localized HR-PCa treated with primary RT or RP.

Methods and materials

The medical records of patients with localized HR-PCa who were treated at our institution between 2002 and 2011 were reviewed. Patient and disease characteristics, treatment details, and outcomes were collected. A combination of nearest-neighbor propensity score matching on age, Adult Comorbidity Evaluation-27 comorbidity index, prostate-specific antigen, biopsy Gleason scores, and clinical T-stage as well as exact matching on prostate-specific antigen, biopsy Gleason scores, and clinical T-stage was performed. Outcomes were measured from diagnosis. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare metastasis-free and overall survival.

Results

A total of 246 patients were identified with 62 propensity-score-matched pairs. ADT was administered to 6.5% and 80.6% of patients receiving RP and RT, respectively. Five-year rates of metastasis for RP and RT were 33% and 8.9%, respectively (P = .003). Overall survival was not different. Delay of salvage therapy was longer for patients undergoing primary RT (P < .001). Findings were similar when only those patients who did not receive ADT were compared.

Conclusions

At our institution, treatment with primary RT resulted in superior metastasis-free survival over RP. This was not accompanied by an improvement in OS.

Comparative effectiveness of radical prostatectomy and curative radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer: long-term follow-up

We sought to investigate the long-term outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) and external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for the treatment of localized prostate cancer in Japanese patients. RP and radiation therapy are curative treatments for localized prostate cancer. However, there is controversy around which treatment is superior in Japanese patients. The aim of our retrospective study was to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of each treatment. We retrospectively evaluated the overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and biochemical failure-free survival (BFS) for patients who had been diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and treated with RP (n = 248) or conventional 2D or 3D-CRT EBRT (n = 182) between 1995 and 2009. The median OS was superior in the RP group compared with that in EBRT group (P < 0.001), although CSS was comparable for both treatment groups; BFS was superior for the EBRT group compared with that for the RP group (P = 0.04). Univariate analysis identified a prostate-specific antigen count (PSA)of ≥20 vs <20 mg/ml, clinical T-stage of the tumor and Gleason score as predictors for CSS. However, multivariate analysis did not identify a factor for CSS. Subgroup analysis was also performed based on clinical T stage, PSA and Gleason score, but there was no difference in each subgroup between RP and EBRT. Both treatments provided satisfactory clinical outcomes in terms of disease control in localized prostate cancer.

Cancer-Specific Mortality Among Korean Men with Localized or Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer Treated with Radical Prostatectomy Versus Radiotherapy: A Multi-Center Study Using Propensity Scoring and Competing Risk Regression Analyses

Purpose

Studies comparing radical prostatectomy (RP) outcomes with those of radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy (RT±ADT) for prostate cancer (PCa) have yielded conflicting results. Therefore, we used propensity score-matched analysis and competing risk regression analysis to compare cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other-cause mortality (OCM) between these two treatments.

Materials and Methods

The multi-center, Severance Urological Oncology Group registry was utilized to identify 3,028 patients with clinically localized or locally advanced PCa treated by RP (n=2,521) or RT±ADT (n=507) between 2000 and 2016. RT±ADT cases (n=339) were matched with an equal number of RP cases by propensity scoring based on age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen, clinical tumor stage, biopsy Gleason score, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). CSM and OCM were co-primary endpoints.

Results

Median follow-up was 65.0 months. Five-year overall survival rates for patients treated with RP and RT±ADT were 94.7% and 92.0%, respectively (p=0.105). Cumulative incidence estimates revealed comparable CSM rates following both treatments within all National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk groups. Gleason score ≥ 8 was associated with higher risk of CSM (p=0.009). OCM rates were comparable between both groups in the low- and intermediate-risk categories (p=0.354 and p=0.643, respectively). For high-risk patients, RT±ADT resulted in higher OCM rates than RP (p=0.011). Predictors of OCM were age ≥ 75 years (p=0.002) and CCI ≥ 2 (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

RP and RT±ADT provide comparable CSM outcomes in patients with localized or locally advanced PCa. The risk of OCM may be higher for older high-risk patients with significant comorbidities.

Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy: What Do Clinicians Have to Know?

Radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PC) has steadily evolved over the last decades, with improving biochemical disease-free survival. Recently population based research also revealed an association between overall survival and doses ≥ 75.6 Gray (Gy) in men with intermediate- and high-risk PC. Examples of improved RT techniques are image-guided RT, intensity-modulated RT, volumetric modulated arc therapy, and stereotactic ablative body RT, which could facilitate further dose escalation. Brachytherapy is an internal form of RT that also developed substantially. New devices such as rectum spacers and balloons have been developed to spare rectal structures. Newer techniques like protons and carbon ions have the intrinsic characteristics maximising the dose on the tumour while minimising the effect on the surrounding healthy tissue, but clinical data are needed for confirmation in randomised phase III trials. Furthermore, it provides an overview of an important discussion issue in PC treatment between urologists and radiation oncologists: the comparison between radical prostatectomy and RT. Current literature reveals that all possible treatment modalities have the same cure rate, but a different toxicity pattern. We recommend proposing the possible different treatment modalities with their own advantages and side-effects to the individual patient. Clinicians and patients should make treatment decisions together (shared decision-making) while using patient decision aids.

Evaluation of biochemical recurrence in patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy plus androgen deprivation therapy

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the biochemical recurrence (BCR) in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RT) plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

Methods

Subjects were patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network-defined high-risk PCa treated with either RP or RT plus ADT. We calculated BCR-free survival in patients with those treatments and evaluated risk factor against BCR.

Results

A total of 114 patients, 71 RP and 43 RT plus ADT, were evaluated. A total of 59 and 20.9% of patients experienced BCR in the RP and RT treatment groups, respectively. The 5-year BCR-free survival probabilities improved significantly for patients who received RT compared to those who received RP (81.3 vs 37.3%, P<0.001). According to the number of risk factors, 59.2% of patients in the RP and 51.2% of patients in the RT treatment groups were classified with one risk factor (P<0.014). The 5-year BCR-free survival probabilities for patients treated with RP were 46.6 and 21.7% for one and multiple risk factors, respectively (P=0.008). On univariate analysis, only the number of risk factors had a significant impact on the risk of BCR. Meanwhile, there were no significant differences in the 5-year BCR-free survival probabilities between one and multiple risk factors in patients treated with RT.

Conclusion

Among patients treated with RP, a marked heterogeneity existed in the oncological outcomes. Based on these findings, the number of risk factors should be emphasized to decide the optimal treatments for patients with high-risk PCa.

Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: is it 'what you do' or 'the way that you do it'? A UK Perspective on Technique and Quality Assurance

AIMS

The treatment of prostate cancer has evolved markedly over the last 40 years, including radiotherapy, notably with escalated dose and targeting. However, the optimal treatment for localised disease has not been established in comparative randomised trials. The aim of this article is to describe the history of prostate radiotherapy trials, including their quality assurance processes, and to compare these with the ProtecT trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The UK ProtecT randomised trial compares external beam conformal radiotherapy, surgery and active monitoring for clinically localised prostate cancer and will report on the primary outcome (disease-specific mortality) in 2016 following recruitment between 1999 and 2009. The embedded quality assurance programme consists of on-site machine dosimetry at the nine trial centres, a retrospective review of outlining and adherence to dose constraints based on the trial protocol in 54 participants (randomly selected, around 10% of the total randomised to radiotherapy, n = 545). These quality assurance processes and results were compared with prostate radiotherapy trials of a comparable era.

RESULTS

There has been an increasingly sophisticated quality assurance programme in UK prostate radiotherapy trials over the last 15 years, reflecting dose escalation and treatment complexity. In ProtecT, machine dosimetry results were comparable between trial centres and with the UK RT01 trial. The outlining review showed that most deviations were clinically acceptable, although three (1.4%) may have been of clinical significance and were related to outlining of the prostate. Seminal vesicle outlining varied, possibly due to several prostate trials running concurrently with different protocols. Adherence to dose constraints in ProtecT was considered acceptable, with 80% of randomised participants having two or less deviations and planning target volume coverage was excellent.

CONCLUSION

The ProtecT trial quality assurance results were satisfactory and comparable with trials of its era. Future trials should aim to standardise treatment protocols and quality assurance programmes where possible to reduce complexities for centres involved in multiple trials.

The role of radical prostatectomy as an initial approach for the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer

CONTEXT

The treatment of high-risk prostate cancer requires a multimodal approach to improve control of the disease. There is still no consensus as to the initial strategy of choice. The aim of this study is to review the results of radical prostatectomy as first step in management of patients with high-risk disease.

ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE

A search was conducted on PubMed of English and Spanish texts. We included those studies that reported the results of radical prostatectomy in patients with high-risk prostate cancer, as well as those that compared radical prostatectomy with other treatment alternatives. The last search was conducted in November 2015.

SYNTHESIS OF THE EVIDENCE

The advantages of radical prostatectomy include a better pathological analysis, more accurate staging, better local control of the disease and better follow-up and adjuvant therapy strategies. When compared with external radiation therapy plus hormonal blockade, the patients who underwent prostatectomy had greater chances of healing and longer cancer-specific survival. The patients who most benefit from this approach are younger, have fewer comorbidities and no evidence of organ metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

The available scientific evidence to date is not without bias and confounders; however, they appear to favour radical prostatectomy as the initial approach of choice for high-risk prostate cancer.

The comparative oncologic effectiveness of available management strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer

The primary goal of modern prostate cancer treatment paradigms is to optimize the balance of predicted benefits associated with prostate cancer treatment against the predicted harms of therapy. However, given the limitations in the existing evidence as well as the significant tradeoffs posed by each treatment, there remain myriad challenges associated with individualized prostate cancer treatment decision-making. In this review, we summarize the existing comparative effectiveness evidence of treatments for localized prostate cancer with an emphasis on oncologic control. While we focus on the major treatment categories of radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, and observation, we also provide a review of emerging therapies such as cryotherapy and high-intensity frequency ultrasound (HIFU).

Surgery Versus Radiotherapy for Clinically-localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

To date, there is no Level 1 evidence comparing the efficacy of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy for patients with clinically-localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a meta-analysis assessing the overall and prostate cancer-specific mortality among patients treated with radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy for clinically-localized prostate cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library through June 2015 without year or language restriction, supplemented with hand search, using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. We used multivariable adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) to assess each endpoint. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Nineteen studies of low to moderate risk of bias were selected and up to 118 830 patients were pooled. Inclusion criteria and follow-up length varied between studies. Most studies assessed patients treated with external beam radiotherapy, although some included those treated with brachytherapy separately or with the external beam radiation therapy group. The risk of overall (10 studies, aHR 1.63, 95% confidence interval 1.54-1.73, p<0.00001; I(2)=0%) and prostate cancer-specific (15 studies, aHR 2.08, 95% confidence interval 1.76-2.47, p < 0.00001; I(2)=48%) mortality were higher for patients treated with radiotherapy compared with those treated with surgery. Subgroup analyses by risk group, radiation regimen, time period, and follow-up length did not alter the direction of results.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiotherapy for prostate cancer is associated with an increased risk of overall and prostate cancer-specific mortality compared with surgery based on observational data with low to moderate risk of bias. These data, combined with the forthcoming randomized data, may aid clinical decision making.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed available studies assessing mortality after prostate cancer treatment with surgery or radiotherapy. While the studies used have a potential for bias due to their observational design, we demonstrated consistently higher mortality for patients treated with radiotherapy rather than surgery.

Helical intensity-modulated radiotherapy of the pelvic lymph nodes with a simultaneous integrated boost to the prostate--first results of the PLATIN 1 trial

Background

Definitive, percutaneous irradiation of the prostate and the pelvic lymph nodes in high-risk prostate cancer is the alternative to prostatectomy plus lymphadenectomy. To date, the role of whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) has not been clarified especially taking into consideration the benefits of high conformal IMRT (intensity modulated radiotherapy) of complex-shaped target volumes.

Methods

From 2009 to 2012, 40 patients of high-risk prostate cancer with an increased risk of microscopic lymph node involvement were enrolled into this prospective phase II trial. Patients received at least two months of antihormonal treatment (AT) before radiotherapy continuing for at least 2 years. Helical IMRT (tomotherapy) of the pelvic lymph nodes (51.0 Gy) with a simultaneous integrated, moderate hypofractionated boost (single dose of 2.25 Gy) to the prostate (76.5 Gy) was performed in 34 fractions. PSA levels, prostate-related symptoms and quality of life were assessed at regular intervals for 24 months.

Results

Of the 40 patients enrolled, 38 finished the treatment as planned. Overall acute toxicity rates were low and no acute grade 3 or 4 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity occurred. 21.6 % of patients experienced acute grade 2 but no late grade ≥2 GI toxicity. Regarding GU side effects, results showed 48.6 % acute grade 2 and 6.4 % late grade 2 toxicity. After a median observation time of 23.4 months the PLATIN 1 trial can be considered as sufficiently safe meeting the prospectively defined aims of the trial. With 34/37 patients free of a PSA recurrence it shows promising efficacy.

Conclusion

Tomotherapy of the pelvic lymph nodes with a simultaneous integrated boost to the prostate can be performed safely and without excessive toxicity. The combined irradiation of both prostate and pelvic lymph nodes seems to be as well tolerated as the irradiation of the prostate alone.

Trial registration

Trial Numbers: ARO 2009–05, ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01903408.

[Comparative oncologic and functional outcomes of prostate cancer surgery with other curative treatments]

OBJECTIVE

Review of the comparative results of different treatment strategies (surgery, radiotherapy, ultrasound, surveillance) of prostate cancer, in which the main goal is the local control and the second target is the tolerance of the side effects of those treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Review of literature using Medline databases selected based on scientific relevance. Clinical keys centered on the oncological and functional outcomes of comparative series between different curative treatments.

RESULTS

The numerous comparative series between surgery and other therapeutic modalities are essentially retrospective with significant methodological bias that is difficult to overcome in order to formulate the optimal thesis. However, there is a clear tendency toward surgery usually with young patients who have intermediate risk tumors without important comorbidity.

CONCLUSION

In the absence of randomized comparative series with significant power, the oncological and functional results of the radical prostatectomy with or without adjuvant treatment seem at least the same, in a selected population of patients, compared with the combination of radiotherapy-hormonotherapy in terms of survival, without biochemical recurrence, disease-specific survival and overall survival, for the aggressive tumors necessitating curative local treatments.

Role of Surgery in locally advanced prostate cancer

A significant proportion of patients present with locally advanced prostate cancer with inherent higher risk of local recurrence and systemic relapse after initial treatment. Recent literature favors combination of radiation therapy and extended hormonal therapy for this subset of patients. The effectiveness of Radical prostatectomy (RP) alone for locally advanced prostate cancer is controversial and is a focus of debate. However, it can decrease the tumor burden and allows the accurate and precise pathological staging with the need for subsequent treatment. Comparison of RP and other treatment modalities is difficult and incorrect because of inherent selection bias. RP as a part of multi-modality treatment (with neo-adjuvant hormonal therapy (HT) and with adjuvant or salvage radiation therapy (RT)/HT) can provide long term overall and cancer specific survival. Surgical treatment (such as transurethral resection (TUR), JJ stenting and percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) placement etc.) can also provide symptomatic improvement and palliative care to improve quality of life of patients with advanced prostate cancer.